Re: oldlibs & who determines Sections (was Re: raising severity of reports filed for packages build-depending on gcc-3.2
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 04:07:25AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Or rather, to move it to 'oldlibs'; it might be used by third-party
> What third-party binaries are you referring to?
Theoretical programs built against Qt2, which were never updated to Qt3,
which users may still be using. (Actually, third-party sources could
suffer the same problem, so "binaries" was an unnecessary word.)
I have no idea if there actually *are* any such programs or not. If there
aren't, obviously Qt2 can be removed. If there aren't any which matter, it
can obviously be removed. How old is Qt3 by now?...
If there's no maintainer who wants to support Qt2 libraries, it should be
removed, of course. But if someone wants to maintain it for the benefit of
users, it seems perfectly reasonable to leave it in oldlibs.
> QT is GPL/QPL licenced.
Make sure your vote will count.